A Diplomatic Opinion

The Corinthian

Just thought I'd post this, which is the body of an email sent to me by a good friend who also happens to be a middle to senior ranking diplomat in the DFA:

The fundamental reason I would identify for voting yes is not in respect of the Treaties per se. These are a compromise of everybody's wishes for changes/improvements, and Ireland did pretty well out of it. However, voting NO is dangerous for the simple reason that the EU is a consensus based organisation, and so long as you work with the others, your interests and concerns are recognised.

The Brits have never played this game and only get away with it because of their importance. Other large Member States, Poland under the mad twins and Italy under Berlusconi have tried to play tough and got nowhere. Small countries need the goodwill of the others to ensure that their interests are consistently recognised. The Danes are bad at this and are frequently on their own because of this and the Cypriots are even worse, contributing nothing and getting nothing back.

Luxembourg is brilliant at working the system and does very well at looking after itself, because it is a good operator and is well respected. Ireland has traditionally been a very effective operator, but voting no on the Treaty will strip away a huge amount of goodwill and influence. If that sounds like bullying, you're missing the point. Voting yes sends a strong signal to the 27 and the Commission that Ireland wants to be a player, voting no implies a detached relationship from the EU. We have a lot of interests at stake on issues like tax and energy and climate change, the CAP, R&D funding programmes etc. (Please trust me, I happen to deal with these issues for Foreign Affairs).

Making sure we consistently get what we want from our partners requires support for the EU (ie working with them). Voting no says we don't really want to work with you. It would weaken our voice, and damage our influence. This is the biggest fallacy the No side are promoting - voting no weakens us, not make us stronger. This happened to the French and Dutch, because people worried that they couldn't deliver on their commitments so they were treated as unreliable partners. The stakes are very high. The long-term consequences for a country like Ireland could be really damaging, if we bungle our relationship with the EU. Vote yes, protect your interests and those of everyone else in this country.

In the debate on Lisbon, I felt it would be a good idea to get an informed opinion - that is, from someone who actually understands the treaty as that's what they do for a living. And now you have it.

mikemac

If a senior person in DFF sees he making fun of the Polish leadership, would he get fired?
Maybe not, I'd be careful all the same that that email doesn't get forwarded around.

I've seen people fired for less with similar emails.

That's offtopic, but it's just what struck me about your post

The Corinthian

I agree, which is why I decided to snip their name. I don't think it would get them fired, but it wouldn't help their future promotion prospects either.

As such, you can simply take my word for the source - or not - and either accept or reject their arguments on their own merits. Having grown up on the fringes of these things as a child, it made a lot of sense to me.

ixtlan

In a way that e-mail shows the difference of the yes and no sides.

The no side seems to believe that we must be in a position of power. That decisions are taken in an adversarial manner with each country trying to promote it's own interests regardless of the effect on the others. It's all about power, strength and control.

The yes side says it's all about consensus, accommodation, persuasion and debate.

I'm inclined to think that experience has shown that the yes attitude is correct.

Ix.

sink

That post mirrors my sentiments exactly. People are being naive if they think a no vote will make Irelands bargaining position stronger. I don't see any positives in a no vote.

Ponster

sink wrote: »

People are being naive if they think a no vote will make Irelands bargaining position stronger. I don't see any positives in a no vote.

Also the view of the French media for what it's worth. The idea of Ireland voting 'no' and Europe coming back with a Plan C isn't going to happen. The majority of the country is split between those who see Ireland as standing up for the French people who already voted no to an almost identical treaty 3 years ago but who this time are prevented from doing so; and those that believe that Ireland should be somehow 'punished' somehow for impeding European progress.

IRLConor

I had the opportunity to talk to some diplomats (from other EU/European countries) last week and while they weren't as explicit as the person quoted by the OP they certainly appeared to share many of the sentiments.

Their attitude towards the assertion by some that we could get a better deal seemed to be (broadly) that the treaty is a consensus position of all 27 states, we won't get anything more without giving something in return.

Moriarty

It's certainly the same point of view I'd see things from.

The single largest obstacle to the future of the EU is a lack of understanding amongst the general population of europe of exactly what the EU does and how it's carried out.

National politicians in every country find it very easy to blame Brussels for any unpopular moves, no matter whether they privately agree with it or not. For a long time that worked, as the people of europe were happy with the ideal of the EU and generally took a blind eye to the parts they weren't entirely happy with as they realised that the EU was genuinely a Good Thing for all concerned in the grand scheme of things. However, I think we reached a point in the mid-nineties where the amount of FUD surrounding the EU - much of it created by the very people who are most for the project, but publicly spoke against it due to short term small-scale political advantage - began to have a genuine impact on the image of the EU itself amongst europeans.

That apathy and willingness to continue allowing the EU to be the national parliament's kicking-boy needs to be combatted vigorously by everyone involved in the EU. In my own experience I've found that generally if someone educates themselves on the EU they'll come out the other side with a significantly better opinion of it. That's the only way we'll continue to have popular support for the EU project as it continues into the next sixty years of its existance.

redspider

Diplomat> it's all about consensus, accommodation, persuasion and debate.

Yes, the EU is a body that requires consensus, persuasion, etc, and there is a high level of 'politicking' involved in people getting what they can for their country.

The problem with the premise that the people of Ireland should vote Yes, as it is already the consensus, is the problem as it demonstrates the disconnect between the EU and the people, between the diplomats/politicians and the people. That attitude is saying that the diplomats and politicians know best, that the Irish people should just trust them implicitly and toe the line, and that the opinions and voice of the Irish people should be taken for granted, etc, etc.

That attitude will gain some Yes voters, those that kow-tow to authority as though they know no better. But it will also make voters vote No, those that do not want their votes taken for granted.

It is not a reason for voting No or for voting Yes. People should have made up their own minds based on the pro's and con's that are in the treaty itself, not on what diplomats or politicians of whatever hue tell them to do.

> voting no implies a detached relationship from the EU

Why would voting No imply that. It could equally imply a myriad of other things such as the people of Ireland want more say in the EU, and want more say for all the other peoples in the EU. Perhaps they want to remove some of the powers that the po0liotciians and diplomats have. Thats perhaps what a No implies!

"Vote Yes if you know whats good for you", is what this diplomat is saying, and that attitude stinks to the high heaven of arrogance and disconnect and taking peoples votes for granted.

Redspider

The Corinthian

That is a fair point and possibly the principle problem with the EU - although whether a no vote would help to address this is another matter, as is whether this is the true motivation of many of the no campaigners.

The problem rests with a conflict of interests. A pan-European democracy will not happen as long as national governments retain the right to self government. As long as that continues then any agreement between member states will always take the form of common or bilateral treaties, that are by their nature diplomatic rather than democratic.

This is one of the things that has always amused me about Euroscepticism; it complains that Europe is undemocratic, but suggest that you take power from the national governments and give it to the European parliament and they will cry foul.

Ultimately, you can't have it both ways.

djpbarry

Moriarty wrote: »

The single largest obstacle to the future of the EU is a lack of understanding amongst the general population of europe of exactly what the EU does and how it's carried out.

Absolutely; I've come across a great deal of this over the last few weeks. I have been amazed how otherwise intelligent people have virtually no idea how the EU operates.

Moriarty wrote: »

In my own experience I've found that generally if someone educates themselves on the EU they'll come out the other side with a significantly better opinion of it. That's the only way we'll continue to have popular support for the EU project as it continues into the next sixty years of its existance.

Couldn't agree more. Are kids educated on the workings of the EU in school at all? I seem to recall learning a little about the history of the community, but not much beyond that (if I remember correctly).

redspider wrote: »

Thats perhaps what a No implies!

We have no idea what a 'No' vote implies; one of the greatest fallacies of the 'No' campaign is the notion that a rejection of the treaty will send some kind of “message” to Brussels.